Apple doesn’t have to offer the union anything, let alone benefits it’s giving other employees: the union sets out its draft contract thoughts and the two sides negotiate.
Granted a “machinists and aerospace workers” union might desire some help in what on earth retail sales clerks employment is about, but they really need to do their own homework.
That organization choice just never ceases to puzzle. I’d think an actual sales person union would have been far more effective a choice.
I’d think a familiarity with the sales positions job requirements would be useful when negotiating scheduling etc. There’s surely a lot of details specific to the retail world I’d expect would be quite foreign to an aerospace worker. Yet the union has to get all those details right in their offer so the negotiation is dealing with the reality of those Apple workers.
Apparently the unionizers didn't understand what a union is or how it works. You signed a contract, now live with it. Can't wait for the NLRB to tell them exactly that.
They haven’t negotiated a contract with Apple yet.
And maybe that’s the reason Apple is holding back. Why give something for nothing to people who insist on negotiating everything.
While I agree, if you’re in a union, then you have to negotiate and get a contract to get any change in benefits. That’s how it works.
Buuuuuut
If the NLRB finds that Apple was giving non unionized workers benefits that they were not offering for the Union contract that could get them in hot water. If the NLRB finds that Apple is offering substantially better pay and benefits to non Union workers doing the same job in an effort to get people to quit the Union, to bust it, that could get them in hot water. If the NLRB finds that Apple is improving pay and benefits for non union workers, while delaying the start of negotiations, and/or not negotiating in good faith, that could get them in hot water.
It is up to the NLRB to see if there is a pattern here. Apple may have broken the law. Only time will tell.
Not necessarily so If Apple is smart they will challenge everything and take it to the Supreme Court and seek to vacate the Wagner Act - aka The National Labor Relations Act. Given the current Supreme Court, they can gut that stupid law.
While I agree, if you’re in a union, then you have to negotiate and get a contract to get any change in benefits. That’s how it works.
Buuuuuut
If the NLRB finds that Apple was giving non unionized workers benefits that they were not offering for the Union contract that could get them in hot water. If the NLRB finds that Apple is offering substantially better pay and benefits to non Union workers doing the same job in an effort to get people to quit the Union, to bust it, that could get them in hot water. If the NLRB finds that Apple is improving pay and benefits for non union workers, while delaying the start of negotiations, and/or not negotiating in good faith, that could get them in hot water.
It is up to the NLRB to see if there is a pattern here. Apple may have broken the law. Only time will tell.
False, right now non union employees working in San Francisco is getting paid more than other areas because of the much higher cost of living in the Bay Area and higher minimum wage laws. Apple is under no obligation to pay union employees of Apple Stores in areas with a much lower cost of living and minimum wage, the same as those non union employees in SF. Apple do not have to offer union employees the same pay as non union employees (for doing the same job.). Union employees wages and benefits are negotiated with the union contract. Right now, the pay for doing the same job in an Apple Store varies by State and cities because of the varying cost of living and minimum wage laws. In SF, CA, the minimum wage is $16.99/hr and in Towson, MD, it's $12.50/hr. Apple do not have to pay the union employees in Towson Apple Store a minimum of $16.99/hr, just because non union Apple Store employees in SF, are getting at least that.
The only time i can think of of it being against labor laws, to pay non union employees more than union employees, is when it's an "open shop". In an "open shop", the union represents all employees but the employees are not required to join the union or pay union dues (in order to work there and receive all union negotiated benefits). Here, the employer can not pay non-union employees more than union members, as the employer has an agreement to have non union employees under the same contract as the union employees. This would be a case of union busting, if the employer started offering non union employees more benefits. Right now, the Towson Store union do not represent all Apple employees, regardless if they are non union employees and the union have no say in what Apple offers them in benefits. But the union can negotiate for those benefits, regardless if Apple offers them of not. The union is under no obligation to only negotiate for benefits that Apple only offers at the bargaining table.
You have to remember who the NLRB really represents. They represent the employees and their rights to organize and bargain for better benefits, with or without a union. The fact that Apple employees were able to receive better benefits without a union, in not against any policy set by the NLRB. Even if it might amount to bribing employees to not join a union. It would only be against NLRB policy if Apple were to coerce employees by reducing benefits or use threat of termination, if they were organizing to fight for better benefits or to form or join a union. If employees can get better benefits by not having to join a union and pay union dues, all the better for the employees, as far as the NLBR is concern. And as far as the NLBR is concern, the union employees can negotiate for those extra benefit offered to non union employees, regardless if Apple offers them or not. So long as Apple negotiate in good faith.
You apparently missed where I said IF THE NLRB FINDS THAT…. in front of each line. It is not up to you or I to decide. the NLRB will carry out the investigation. Plus the complaint would not necessarily be comparing to the Apple Stores in SF. If there is another Apple Store in the same area that is getting better wages and benefits but is non Union, that would be the comparison. This would be especially true if those increases were not on the negotiating table. Once again neither you nor I know what has been offered, or even if Apple has started negotiating.
You did point out one good thing: So long as Apple negotiates in good faith. I suspect that is one of the things the NLRB is looking at.
What you mean "If....."? Apple already did it. It's "When ......". And i don't think the NLRB will do anything against Apple because they did this, as the NLBR represents the all employees rights, not the union rights. Non union employees have the rights to receive better wages and benefits, whether the union like it or not.
And there's no "If" Apple is not offering those benefits at the time of negotiation. The union can negotiate for any benefits, whether Apple bring it to the bargaining table or not. Or you don't think that? In fact, the fact that Apple already offered the better benefits to non union employees will increase the chances that the union will get those same benefits for their union members, when negotiating the contract. Apple will have a hard time denying union members those same benefits, but it still has to be negotiated for by the union.
And no, it doesn't matter if the comparison is with another Apple Store in the same area, that is non union. If there was another Apple Store in the same area, why didn't the union also include those employees in on the vote to unionize? If the other stores chose to not unionize, which is their right, they still have every right to receive better wages and benefits, without the help of a union. And the union can not claim union busting because Apple might be "bribing" them to not unionize by offering the extra benefits. The NLRB don't care about that. They only care if Apple were to coerce their employees, to not unionize or quit the union.
How about this scenario? The union negotiate better benefits and wages for the Apple Store that chose to unionize. Apple offers those same benefits to another Apple Store in the same area, that is non union. The union cry that Apple is trying to discourage the employees in that Apple Store from unionizing and thus the union claim they are losing union dues from those employees that are receiving the same benefits they negotiated for their union paying members. They claim the it's a form of union busting. Do the union have a case? Will the NLRB care that employees are receiving the same union benefits, without having to join a union?
The bottom line is that the union do not have the right to deny non union employees from receiving better benefits, just because those benefits were not negotiated through a union or not offered to union employees without first negotiating for it. (like how it's has to be done.) But the union have every right to negotiate for those better benefits when negotiating the union contract. The union always has the right to demand those same benefits (and more) at negotiation, whether Apple offer them or not. The NLRB has nothing to do with this process, so long as employees rights to bargain for better wages and benefits are not compromised. Including the rights of non union employees. Apple do not have to offer the same benefits that their union employees bargained for, to their non union employees. But in no way can the union demand that Apple can not offer their non union employees the same or better benefits, than their union employees. If they do, then the NLRB will have a say with that demand as it affects the rights of non union employees.
LOL...few people in this thread bothered to look at the Verge article being cited. The complaint to the NLRB is that Apple failed to share the details of the new benefits with the union. In other words, the ability to negotiate has been compromised by the lack of information. They aren't asking the NLRB to force Apple to give them the benefits without negotiating. They're really just asking the NLRB to ensure that Apple does its part of the process in good faith.
Apparently the unionizers didn't understand what a union is or how it works. You signed a contract, now live with it. Can't wait for the NLRB to tell them exactly that.
They haven’t negotiated a contract with Apple yet.
And maybe that’s the reason Apple is holding back. Why give something for nothing to people who insist on negotiating everything.
They leaked an announcement the day prior to a unionization vote.
Apple was trying to dangle a "secret" carrot to entice workers not to unionize. Jacka$$ corporate maneuver.
There is literally nothing Apple has done in the past 20 years that should entice their lowest paid workers to kowtow to corporate greed bosses. Unions unite workers against robber barons. Sadly, in many ways Apple falls into this group.
Comments
If Apple is smart they will challenge everything and take it to the Supreme Court and seek to vacate the Wagner Act - aka The National Labor Relations Act.
Given the current Supreme Court, they can gut that stupid law.
And there's no "If" Apple is not offering those benefits at the time of negotiation. The union can negotiate for any benefits, whether Apple bring it to the bargaining table or not. Or you don't think that? In fact, the fact that Apple already offered the better benefits to non union employees will increase the chances that the union will get those same benefits for their union members, when negotiating the contract. Apple will have a hard time denying union members those same benefits, but it still has to be negotiated for by the union.
And no, it doesn't matter if the comparison is with another Apple Store in the same area, that is non union. If there was another Apple Store in the same area, why didn't the union also include those employees in on the vote to unionize? If the other stores chose to not unionize, which is their right, they still have every right to receive better wages and benefits, without the help of a union. And the union can not claim union busting because Apple might be "bribing" them to not unionize by offering the extra benefits. The NLRB don't care about that. They only care if Apple were to coerce their employees, to not unionize or quit the union.
How about this scenario? The union negotiate better benefits and wages for the Apple Store that chose to unionize. Apple offers those same benefits to another Apple Store in the same area, that is non union. The union cry that Apple is trying to discourage the employees in that Apple Store from unionizing and thus the union claim they are losing union dues from those employees that are receiving the same benefits they negotiated for their union paying members. They claim the it's a form of union busting. Do the union have a case? Will the NLRB care that employees are receiving the same union benefits, without having to join a union?
The bottom line is that the union do not have the right to deny non union employees from receiving better benefits, just because those benefits were not negotiated through a union or not offered to union employees without first negotiating for it. (like how it's has to be done.) But the union have every right to negotiate for those better benefits when negotiating the union contract. The union always has the right to demand those same benefits (and more) at negotiation, whether Apple offer them or not. The NLRB has nothing to do with this process, so long as employees rights to bargain for better wages and benefits are not compromised. Including the rights of non union employees. Apple do not have to offer the same benefits that their union employees bargained for, to their non union employees. But in no way can the union demand that Apple can not offer their non union employees the same or better benefits, than their union employees. If they do, then the NLRB will have a say with that demand as it affects the rights of non union employees.
Apple was trying to dangle a "secret" carrot to entice workers not to unionize.
Jacka$$ corporate maneuver.
There is literally nothing Apple has done in the past 20 years that should entice their lowest paid workers to kowtow to corporate greed bosses.
Unions unite workers against robber barons. Sadly, in many ways Apple falls into this group.